-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Julien Anguenot wrote:
> 
>>Ok the problem is the doctype declaration on top of the macro files that
>>force the tal interpretor to enter html mode and as far as I understand
>>you can't have mix moded macros.
> 
> 
> Exactly. I forgot to mention that in my follow-up...
> 
> Btw, doctype declaration is something else. You probably just mean the
> XML processing instruction.

sure. It was just before my investigation around the problem.

> 
> 
>>If you change the doctype declaration with the xml header and add the
>>xmlns declaration for tal, metal and i18n then everything's fine after.
>>
>>See for instance the navigation macros :
>>
>>http://svn.zope.org/Zope3/trunk/src/zope/app/rotterdam/navigation_macros.pt?rev=28163&view=auto
>>
>>If you change the header like this then it can be succesfully included :
>>
>><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";
>>      xmlns:tal="http://xml.zope.org/namespaces/tal";
>>      xmlns:metal="http://xml.zope.org/namespaces/metal";
>>      xmlns:i18n="http://xml.zope.org/namespaces/i18n";
>>      i18n:domain="zope">
>><body>
>>
>>What kind of issue could we have changing the headers like this on all
>>the standard macros since it's xhtml already ?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if this is a good idea. Because once Zope3's macros are XML
> mode, all other templates using those macros need to be XML mode. That,
> in turn, means that all templates need to carry the <?xml ...?>
> processing instruction because that's the only way XML mode is currently
> triggered. Since that processing instruction is optional (as opposed to
> namespace declarations which are mandatory), I wouldn't want to force it
> on template authors.
> 

I'm ok if we could have the default processing mode to XML on PT.

Could someone explain me why two different processing modes exist ?

> I would think changing the headers like the above AND changing the
> default mode to XML mode at the same time would probably be more
> appropriate because it would only introduce one upgrade hurdle (the
> mandatory namespace declarations).
> 

I'm ok with this.

        J.

- --
Julien Anguenot | Nuxeo R&D (Paris, France)
CPS Platform : http://www.cps-project.org
Zope3 / ECM   : http://www.z3lab.org
mail: anguenot at nuxeo.com; tel: +33 (0) 6 72 57 57 66
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDFbfuGhoG8MxZ/pIRAtKoAJ0X21v6ky2w+Lp38WEFb/r+RdqJUQCbBu+T
KYdn2kxrqFFe7WEFms22kxo=
=z4Pz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to